Uncanny X-Men General Discussion

[Crawler]

Originally posted by Winged Outlaw
K gotcha. So it works/doesn't work when convenient then.

Oh yeah. Giving a character's powers limitations. How convenient.

Nightcrawler can disappear and reappear wherever he wants...within a few miles and as long as he has seen where he's going. How convenient. Shame on you Dave Cockrum!

Phoenix can destroy entire worlds...but the power drives her nuts. How convenient. A pox on you, Chris Claremont!

*gasp* Cyclops has a beam of energy that can pulverize rock come out of his eyes...but it's not hot can can't cut things! How convenient. I guess Stan Lee and Jack Kirby really missed the boat on that one.

*looks back at the Casey issues and sheds a tear* Warren was so cool back then, and he didn't need magical healing powers...

And half the people angry and bitching that he's got a new power were sitting around message boards bitching how he's "just a guy who can fly."

Adding powers and giving limitations is something comic writers have been doing since the beginning. It's always been there and always been accepted...maybe even expected.

A lot of the gripes and bitches about Chuck's writing is about how he's doing things that other writers not only get away with but get PRAISED for.

Sometimes I think people want to bitch about it simply because they have some imagined personal vendetta against him. Or they read something they didn't like and decided not to like anything else from him.

And I sometimes wonder if you went back and just switched the NAMES on the books -- kept the art, story, dialogue, everything else the same, and just changed the little field where it tells you who wrote it -- if suddenly Austen's "horrible rip-off of a tired tale we've all heard too many times" would suddenly be Morrison's "beautiful homage to a classic and timeless work." And Morrison's "great arc showing a man driven over the edge and realistically destroying New York (a continuity to which all the other writers should adhere)" would become Austen's "horrible mischaracterization of a classic character and blatant disregard for the shared universe."

[Miles Teg]

Warren's new powers are convenient. They work only on the characters that the writers want to have saved, if not the writer can have that character die, claiming it was because of his/her blood-type.

It IS convenient, and in a day and age where readers expect more than pulp, it comes across as sloppy writing, we've grown since the Dark Phoenix storyline, since the first appearance of Nightcrawler and since the creation of the X-men.

We no longer accept lame plotlines and story-gimmicks as easily as we once did.

Also your remark on Dark Phoenix is completely unrelated. She was a power junkie, and like most junkies, she's addicted to her power, the addiction took away her barriers, she always pushed the boundaries in order to get the next kick.

Phoenix can destroy whole worlds, but it's NOT her power that drives her nuts, it's her desire to expand her powers that drives her nuts.

and come to think of it, your remark about Nightcrawler's limitations aren't really important in this discussion, since it's everything but convenient for him to only be able to teleport to those places that he has seen. It's a natural limitation to his ability, it didn't pop up out of nowhere and it's not depending on the story.

Warren's healing powers is dependant on the writer and the story he wants to tell. Oh well, we have a man down, but I have stories I want to tell with that character, so Warren can heal him, and while we're at it, just as an act of randomness, because tragedy fits my story, I'll have that other character die, and then pass it off as them not having the same bloodtype.

Actually this was made clear in the memorial issue. It's convenient that of the twelve children he healed, one of them was related to the big bad graveyard man who wanted Skin's grave emptied.

[Nightcrawler ZERO]

No, that wasn't convenient. It was Ironic.

Was it convenient that the man who saved Scout Finch just so happened to be Boo Radley?

Was it convenient that Sydney Carton happened to look just like Charles Darnay, so that he could go to the guillotine to save the life of the one man who the girl he could never have loved?

Was it convenient that Claudius supplied Laertes with the same poison tipped blade that Hamlet would use to kill him (and, by the way, the poisons affected Hamlet much more slowly than anyone else)?

Coincidence is necessary. It is often used to move a plot along which would remain stagnant otherwise, or to prove a point.

It's convenient that of the twelve children he healed, one of them was related to the big bad graveyard man who wanted Skin's grave emptied.

The point here was that it's very easy to hate people because they are different, but w'ere only hurting ourselves by doing so, because the very people we hate could be the ones to help us when we need it most.

[Crawler]

Arguing that something popped out of nowhere because there is no precedence at that point is moot. There is a first time for everything.

WITHIN the bounds of your argument, the fact that there is precedence of Warren's healing powers not working on everyone BEFORE this arc in a situation where the characters not saved are unknowns makes it valid.

Putting limitations on a power, on a character, is perfectly acceptable and that's my point.

The examples I gave were for a reason. Nightcrawler could have easily been able to teleport anywhere he wanted. And Phoenix could have been left as powerful as all get out as a contributing member of the team. But they slapped limitations on them.

Warren's healing power has the limitation that it can't heal everyone. What's so wrong with that? That now the writer can pick and choose who it works on? Well, sorry to tell you this, but the writer picks and chooses EVERYTHING.

Using the Nightcrawler example, a writer could easily pick and choose where he can teleport and where he can't simply by saying whether or not he'd been there before.

Oh well, we have a man down, but I have stories I want to tell with that character, so Warren can heal him, and while we're at it, just as an act of randomness, because tragedy fits my story, I'll have that other character die, and then pass it off as them not having the same bloodtype.

It was the writer that put them in that situation in the first place. The man down is down because the writer made him that way. Nothing is random because IT'S A STORY. It's WRITTEN by somebody. It's not reporting what happened and then altering it to suit your purposes.

It's fiction. And, like it or not, EVERYTHING that happens to these characters is for one reason only: The writer wanted it to happen.

[mightiest_mortal]

Originally posted by Miles Teg

Also your remark on Dark Phoenix is completely unrelated. She was a power junkie, and like most junkies, she's addicted to her power, the addiction took away her barriers, she always pushed the boundaries in order to get the next kick.
Phoenix can destroy whole worlds, but it's NOT her power that drives her nuts, it's her desire to expand her powers that drives her nuts.

How convenient

Scotts brother happens to be a mutant too... thats not convenient?

they go to space and some pirate is scotts dad!! Thats not convenient?

Scotts son gets sent into the future so he can come back as an older guy and the writers dont have to write about a baby anymore.. thats not convenient???

The entire X-World is made up of conveniences and coincidences.

Its way too convenient having mutants with special powers. If the writers were any good theyd be able to write X-Men stories about mutants without any special powers who are just like everyone else.
Forget that...its way too convenient them being mutants at all.. the X-Men should all just be regular people.. they shouldnt even be called 'X-Men'. Thats just a poor convenient way for the writers to make them seem like superheroes.
PAH I hate writers!!

Originally posted by Crawler
A lot of the gripes and bitches about Chuck's writing is about how he's doing things that other writers not only get away with but get PRAISED for.

And I sometimes wonder if you went back and just switched the NAMES on the books -- kept the art, story, dialogue, everything else the same, and just changed the little field where it tells you who wrote it -- if suddenly Austen's "horrible rip-off of a tired tale we've all heard too many times" would suddenly be Morrison's "beautiful homage to a classic and timeless work." And Morrison's "great arc showing a man driven over the edge and realistically destroying New York (a continuity to which all the other writers should adhere)" would become Austen's "horrible mischaracterization of a classic character and blatant disregard for the shared universe."

agree with u completely there.

[Winged Outlaw]

Originally posted by Crawler

Originally posted by Winged Outlaw
K gotcha. So it works/doesn't work when convenient then.

Oh yeah. Giving a character's powers limitations. How convenient.

Toche, to a point. My main gripe is that Warren didn't need magical healing powers to begin with. They might as well give him "Dragonballs" as a code-name.

*looks back at the Casey issues and sheds a tear* Warren was so cool back then, and he didn't need magical healing powers...

And half the people angry and bitching that he's got a new power were sitting around message boards bitching how he's "just a guy who can fly."

Well boo-hoo. I'm not speaking for them, I'm speaking for myself. Warren was such a great character because he didn't have a huge arsenal of abilities at his disposal, he could just fly. Yet, he used this ability to near full potential (I forget what issue of Thunderbolts that this was illustrated so wonderfully in), and no one on the X-Men (especially Iceman or any of the original five) would ever have the audacity to call his powers "useless". I also found it really dumb that the man who orchestrated the corporate takedown of an international drug cartel under Casey was later shown to be unable to run his company during Dominant Species. This was the other great thing about Warren, he was more dangerous wearing a suit than he was wearing spandex.

Austen neutered him To top it all off, he puts him in the most contrived relationship I've ever seen, even managing to piss off the Betsy fans by having Warren talk smack about his relationship with her in the last arc. All Warren is good for now is moaning about Paige whenever she's not within 20 feet of him. What a disgrace.

Adding powers and giving limitations is something comic writers have been doing since the beginning. It's always been there and always been accepted...maybe even expected.

Why can't I live in a world where these things dont have to at least make sense?

A lot of the gripes and bitches about Chuck's writing is about how he's doing things that other writers not only get away with but get PRAISED for.

Those other writers manage to tell complete stories. Everything Austen's ever put out has seemed rushed and unfinished to me.

Sometimes I think people want to bitch about it simply because they have some imagined personal vendetta against him. Or they read something they didn't like and decided not to like anything else from him.

Please. I like his Exiles. But he can't write Uncanny for anything.

And I sometimes wonder if you went back and just switched the NAMES on the books -- kept the art, story, dialogue, everything else the same, and just changed the little field where it tells you who wrote it -- if suddenly Austen's "horrible rip-off of a tired tale we've all heard too many times" would suddenly be Morrison's "beautiful homage to a classic and timeless work." And Morrison's "great arc showing a man driven over the edge and realistically destroying New York (a continuity to which all the other writers should adhere)" would become Austen's "horrible mischaracterization of a classic character and blatant disregard for the shared universe."

Planet X was in my opinion a terrific character reconstruction, but honestly that's neither here nor there. Once again I just gotta ask, is it possible to defend Austen's work through any method outside of talking trash about other titles and trying to make Austen's work look better through comparrison? Does this book have any merits on its own?

[Crawler]

Well...short answer. Yes, it has merits of its own...but no, I don't always enjoy it and sometimes I don't like it at all, though that goes for pretty much every comic I read.

The reason I defend it (and Chuck) is because a lot of the points being brought up as flaws are ONLY flaws because the people bitching about them don't want things to happen the way they did.

"Iceman's a jerk now! Chuck is such a hack!"
"Angel changed! Austen must be unimaginative!"
"Nightcrawler's not a priest! Austin hates religion!"

The points that I've been counterpointing are all moot. They're only flaws subjectively...and are therefore only a matter of opinion.

My point is, and always has been, that though Uncanny has its share of problems, Chuck being allowed to use the characters as he wishes is not one of them.

Your points that you added in this last argument are much more objective and valid, though lumping Chuck into one group and all the other writers into the other is overkill. There are plenty of writers that fall into the same things he seems to.

To top it all off, he puts him in the most contrived relationship I've ever seen, even managing to piss off the Betsy fans by having Warren talk smack about his relationship with her in the last arc.

I don't find it contrived. I think it's convenient for both of them and is NOT a strong relationship...but I think it's realisitic. And sometimes rebounds and schoolgirl crushes turn into meaningful relationships. We'll have to see.

As for the smack...you always talk smack about your ex. And maybe i wasn't actually smack, just taken the wrong way. Fans are always overly defensive about their favorite character...

If you're talking about the "running away" line...well, she kinda did, at least from Warren's P.O.V. She dumped him (and ran off with the X-Treme team) because she didn't want to deal.

Not to mention that at this point, IMO, Betsy and Warren would be as contrived as anything else. If she comes back in her original body (as rumoured) then the one thing that drew and held them together is gone and people are just going to have to let that relationship go.

Why can't I live in a world where these things dont have to at least make sense?

First, it's a comic so you don't live in that world for one thing, and powers defy all sorts of reason for another. And Draco and Lies With Angels has explained why it was healing blood as opposed to something else. Wings and the Healing Blood seem to go hand-in-hand, genetically. So it has been explained, just not outright.

I also found it really dumb that the man who orchestrated the corporate takedown of an international drug cartel under Casey was later shown to be unable to run his company during Dominant Species. This was the other great thing about Warren, he was more dangerous wearing a suit than he was wearing spandex.

Corporate Execs think they have everything under control only to have it fall out from under them A LOT. And since Warren had been spending more time with the X-Men and less running his company, it makes sense.

And I, too, kinda lament the loss of Corporate Shark Archangel, but very few writers would be able to pull that off effectively...let alone in a book that's supposed to be about a team.

Now, if they had a West Wing-y business-based solo Warren book, I'd be there.

Once again I just gotta ask, is it possible to defend Austen's work through any method outside of talking trash about other titles and trying to make Austen's work look better through comparrison? Does this book have any merits on its own?

Most of the points we've been making have not beeing taking jabs at any of the other books, simply arguing that the things most Austen-bashers see as wrong are tried and true literary devices and are therefore not examples of bad writing.

And, if you take another look, that jab started with "I sometimes wonder if..." not "I'll bet you a million bucks..."

[Warbird]

I realize that you're all beyond this now, but I just want to say, that out of all of the accepted power limitations, Warren's is the most legit. Unless I missed somthing, Doctors have still not been able to use unmatching blood types on patients with out complications. This goes along with organs and other body fluids also... I don't understand this problem with Warren not being to heal cross- blood type. It just makes logical sence!!! If you want to talk about convienient, it's being able to heal despite biochemestry. Even if mutants don't apply to it because theirs is different, the regular humans should still be effected by their natural, medical limitations, and not take to unmatching blood. I just don't get the big deal.

[The Drastic Spastic]

Originally posted by Warbird
I realize that you're all beyond this now, but I just want to say, that out of all of the accepted power limitations, Warren's is the most legit. Unless I missed somthing, Doctors have still not been able to use unmatching blood types on patients with out complications. This goes along with organs and other body fluids also... I don't understand this problem with Warren not being to heal cross- blood type. It just makes logical sence!!! If you want to talk about convienient, it's being able to heal despite biochemestry. Even if mutants don't apply to it because theirs is different, the regular humans should still be effected by their natural, medical limitations, and not take to unmatching blood. I just don't get the big deal.

The big deal is that the writer decides whose bloodtype is what... and I find it a extraordinarily convenient way to get around the dead means dead rule. Gee, I wanna make it look like I'm gonna kill someone in an attempt to get people to give a damn. I don't want the character to actually die, but it still has to look convincing.

(<-- Look what I found when looking for scratch! I love it!!)

[Winged Outlaw]

Originally posted by Crawler
Well...short answer. Yes, it has merits of its own...but no, I don't always enjoy it and sometimes I don't like it at all, though that goes for pretty much every comic I read.

The reason I defend it (and Chuck) is because a lot of the points being brought up as flaws are ONLY flaws because the people bitching about them don't want things to happen the way they did.

"Iceman's a jerk now! Chuck is such a hack!"
"Angel changed! Austen must be unimaginative!"
"Nightcrawler's not a priest! Austin hates religion!"

I dont really mind things not going how I wanted them to (ie: I really wanted the Authority to have a legitimate reason to take over the Earth, rather than fabricate the evidence to do so in Coup D'Etat). My problem is that these events in Uncanny aren't written well in my opinion. I originally liked the concept of Iceman being a little moody over what was happening to him because yes, it was human. But when he started belittling Archangel's powers, hiding his problems from his friends (who not only would have understood but also were probably the most qualified people on the planet to help him), or professing a "love" for Lorna (who he's been over since the vast majority of the X-Men continuity, which is a long time even in Marvel-time), it stops being realistic and its just annoying. Sometimes it seems like Chuck is writing Iceman as he was two decades ago, and other times he's writing him in ways that are totally out of left field and unwarranted.

The points that I've been counterpointing are all moot. They're only flaws subjectively...and are therefore only a matter of opinion.

My point is, and always has been, that though Uncanny has its share of problems, Chuck being allowed to use the characters as he wishes is not one of them.

No, the problem is making every sentence Northstar spits out (when he talks at all) being about his sexuality. Or Lorna acting crazy in ways far beyond the understandable trauma seen in NXM #130. Or Wolverine getting his ass kicked solely for the purpose of making the new bad guys seem tougher. In other words, the problem is that Austen writes these characters as two dimensional characatures at best.

Your points that you added in this last argument are much more objective and valid, though lumping Chuck into one group and all the other writers into the other is overkill. There are plenty of writers that fall into the same things he seems to.

To top it all off, he puts him in the most contrived relationship I've ever seen, even managing to piss off the Betsy fans by having Warren talk smack about his relationship with her in the last arc.

I don't find it contrived. I think it's convenient for both of them and is NOT a strong relationship...but I think it's realisitic. And sometimes rebounds and schoolgirl crushes turn into meaningful relationships. We'll have to see.

I liked the relationship when Paige had a crush, because once again that was a realistic thing that might happen. But never did I think Warren should respond in such a way to Paige's feelings. It might have been better if the relationship was established a bit better, but the only thing we've seen is references to off-panel talks they've had in between Paige getting captured and Warren becoming completely useless in response. I dont know what happened in the Romeo and Juliet thing because I stopped reading after the Draco, but from what I've heard Paige and Warren took off in front of Paige's mother and had sex in the sky, or something like that. That's not just sloppy writing, that's pretty sick...

As for the smack...you always talk smack about your ex. And maybe i wasn't actually smack, just taken the wrong way. Fans are always overly defensive about their favorite character...

If you're talking about the "running away" line...well, she kinda did, at least from Warren's P.O.V. She dumped him (and ran off with the X-Treme team) because she didn't want to deal.

Not to mention that at this point, IMO, Betsy and Warren would be as contrived as anything else. If she comes back in her original body (as rumoured) then the one thing that drew and held them together is gone and people are just going to have to let that relationship go.

Meh, I dont really care about Betsy, I just think that it was poor judgement on Chuck's part to talk badly about a relationship that has so many giddy fanboys so enamoured. Just ask X-fan's Factor/Shadowflame. All the Betsy cookies in the world couldn't console him now...

Why can't I live in a world where these things dont have to at least make sense?

First, it's a comic so you don't live in that world for one thing, and powers defy all sorts of reason for another. And Draco and Lies With Angels has explained why it was healing blood as opposed to something else. Wings and the Healing Blood seem to go hand-in-hand, genetically. So it has been explained, just not outright.

How does that make sense? Bird powers and healing just dont mesh to me, biologically. Sure, he looks like an Angel, and Angels healed people in the Bible, but I hardly see the Bible as a reliable source on anything.

I also found it really dumb that the man who orchestrated the corporate takedown of an international drug cartel under Casey was later shown to be unable to run his company during Dominant Species. This was the other great thing about Warren, he was more dangerous wearing a suit than he was wearing spandex.

Corporate Execs think they have everything under control only to have it fall out from under them A LOT. And since Warren had been spending more time with the X-Men and less running his company, it makes sense.

He seemed to run his team of the X-Men (because damnit, Warren WAS the leader of the X-Men under Casey) out of his own corporation, so it seemed to me like he could run both very well. Considering the mindlessness of the creatures who supposedly usurped a section of his company from him, I just dont buy it. These guys just randomly showed up killing people for some ill-defined evolution reason, hardly showing the mental calibur needed to get past a sharp businessman like Warren was shown to be.

And I, too, kinda lament the loss of Corporate Shark Archangel, but very few writers would be able to pull that off effectively...let alone in a book that's supposed to be about a team.

Yes, but that's hardly an excuse to neuter him instead...

Now, if they had a West Wing-y business-based solo Warren book, I'd be there.

They already do. Except Archangel isn't in this universe.

Wildcats 3.0, one of the best damn comics being printed at the moment. Guess who writes it?

Once again I just gotta ask, is it possible to defend Austen's work through any method outside of talking trash about other titles and trying to make Austen's work look better through comparrison? Does this book have any merits on its own?

Most of the points we've been making have not beeing taking jabs at any of the other books, simply arguing that the things most Austen-bashers see as wrong are tried and true literary devices and are therefore not examples of bad writing.

And, if you take another look, that jab started with "I sometimes wonder if..." not "I'll bet you a million bucks..."

Any one thing I dont really like about Austen's work, be it odd swings in characterization, the reimergence of flashy costumes, or the over-emphasis on sex/religion-bashing could have been understandable if the stories were written better. Unfortunately, its just not written well in my eyes. Austen has good ideas but the way he impliments them leaves me feeling at best cold and at worst put off. I dont see these devices he uses as tried and true, I see them as being lazy.

[Warbird]

Originally posted by The Drastic Spastic
The big deal is that the writer decides whose bloodtype is what... and I find it a extraordinarily convenient way to get around the dead means dead rule. Gee, I wanna make it look like I'm gonna kill someone in an attempt to get people to give a damn. I don't want the character to actually die, but it still has to look convincing.

I just think that since it is the writers concepts coming out, and they decide who will live and die anyway, they also have the creative right to decide who can be saved by the heroes. What I find more rediculouse than writers picking who Warren can heal, is when they decide who Wanda will bring back from the dead. That's more convenient, and even more the cheating of death, than Warren only healing some people. I understand your point, but I guess I just have so many other conveniences that I would pick on in comics before this one, that I'm failing to see what all the fuss is about.

[The Drastic Spastic]

Originally posted by Warbird

I just think that since it is the writers concepts coming out, and they decide who will live and die anyway, they also have the creative right to decide who can be saved by the heroes. What I find more rediculouse than writers picking who Warren can heal, is when they decide who Wanda will bring back from the dead. That's more convenient, and even more the cheating of death, than Warren only healing some people. I understand your point, but I guess I just have so many other conveniences that I would pick on in comics before this one, that I'm failing to see what all the fuss is about.

I'm just irked because I hate Paige and want her dead. Poo on Chuck for making everyone think he was going to kill her to get some hype going and then bringing her back with totally contrived out of nowhere Angel! Powers.

[scheherazade]

*sigh* I just read the last issue of the angels arc, and I'm really put off. I can't say exactly why I find this to be such a weak issue... I'll have to think about it more. But I do not think it was a good conclusion to the arc.


I think the biggest thing that bothered me was [spoiler]Ray's death. We weren't emotionally connected to him enough for it to matter, and was pretty pointless. I really believe that you shouldn't kill off a character just for the heck of it, even if you just introduced him and he'll probably never be used again. It's pointless, and dulls the dramatic effect of Julia's death, as everyone else is doing it too. Sherriff Pete, too... His sacrifice and the subsequent death of his rival could have been a wonderful arc alone. In fact, it would have been a much better story... but there was no time devoted to it, and there was no real emotional response evoked from their deaths. It would have been a good "moral", too... for lack of a better term.[/spoiler]

Actually, as i think about it, what bothers me is the fact that I can't find the "moral" of the arc. "You love people, they die"? I'm really not a fan of arcs in comics, or, rather, I prefer a series of stand-alones that all tie in together to, in retrospect, create an arc. If someone is going to write an arc, I expect it to have some sort of all encompassing theme and a meaning. I thought this was going to be like Romeo & Juliet... it was following the plot closely enough. I was expecting the theme to be about the hate of two families destroying the ones they loved, or, more likely (i thought) the hate of one family destroying one of their own. We didn't get to see that... [spoiler]daddy Cabot dies, and doesn't even know his daughter is dead, and neither do the other Cabots. There is no reconcilliation between the families... [/spoiler] or any recognition that anything changing has happened.

on a positive note... [spoiler]I loved Logan's concern for Lorna... and then the speghetti comment. [/spoiler] Cute scene...

Well, this is probably a lot more critical than I'll be once I re-read and settle, but I wanted to vent. I really thought this arc was going to be good, and I was disappointed.

[Diablo]

It's funny... I remember how I constantly kept complaining about Nicieza and Lobdell's writing back in the nineties.
Now, I just enjoy Austen's X-Men... Very sensitive stories and a lot of great secondary characters.
I guess it's a question of feelings.

[Gambit~Iceman]

To be honest the last arc had it's bad parts, and it had it's good parts. Over all it was alright, not spectacular, but decent. Personally the main thing about any Chuck Austen story I'm starting to really hate is the constant sexual innuendo's, god Chuck we get it. Drop it already, shesh. As far as power limitations go, ya Archangel not being able to save Page's brother's g/f was kind of lame. However that's just the way of comic books. However I'm glad that Chris Claremont and Alan Davis will be handling Nightcrawler from now on, I haven't been very impressed with Austen's Nightcrawler since Draco. However I do enjoying his Juggernaut, so it works out and he'll be keeping him.

[Icey]

Originally posted by Gambit~Iceman
To be honest the last arc had it's bad parts, and it had it's good parts. Over all it was alright, not spectacular, but decent. Personally the main thing about any Chuck Austen story I'm starting to really hate is the constant sexual innuendo's, god Chuck we get it. Drop it already, shesh.

And the all fathers are bad and the church is evil stuff. I don't care what Chuck's opinions are on the above, but I'd like to see less of them appearing in every arc.

[mightiest_mortal]

Originally posted by Icey

Originally posted by Gambit~Iceman
To be honest the last arc had it's bad parts, and it had it's good parts. Over all it was alright, not spectacular, but decent. Personally the main thing about any Chuck Austen story I'm starting to really hate is the constant sexual innuendo's, god Chuck we get it. Drop it already, shesh.

And the all fathers are bad and the church is evil stuff. I don't care what Chuck's opinions are on the above, but I'd like to see less of them appearing in every arc.

Well Draco:Sins of the Father tied together the stories bout bad fathers. and thats been the only story that really focused on the subject.
Most peoples dads were bad mutants though rather than bad fathers.

The whole "Austen always goes on about the church"" is an X-fanism. He rounded off the whole Church of humanity thing.. which would have been very difficult to do without mentioning religion.. and Draco was in a religous context. apart from a page here or there building up to Draco with Kurts issues with the church...THATS TWO STORIES ABOUT RELIGION!!! As weve also had hope, dominant species, Trial of Juggernaut, She lies with Angels, Rules of Engagement, Sacred Vows... all of which pretty much have NO mention of religion. I think quite the opposite. Dominant species had a large subtext showing how Spirituality+stuff can exist in a scientific evolution based world. But yeah.. I can totally see why everyone at X-Fan thinks all of his stories keep focussing on the evil church.

The sexual innuends and everyone being sluts stuff.. i didnt like Husk dropping her nightgown thing in SLWA.. but what? thats any worse than Storm and Gambit making out naked in a lake somewhere? hows that vaguely acceptable?
apart from that, in Austens writing it either comes down to people that are just more sexual (thats pretty much just Polaris) people who dont want to be alone or need someone, or it comes down to people trying to be in love. Its not like everyone just sleeps with everyone and have regular big orgies.. when people sleep with other people they have reasons for doing so.

[Diablo]

I've just read Uncanny#442.
I understand why Logan and Nick Fury are angry, and I'm glad Charles still respects his "old friend"...
But I wonder : where is Chuck Austen heading ? Will Morrison's "bad Magneto" be all that's left of Erik Lensherr, or will Claremont's "clever Magneto" come back ? What do the editors want ? I'm still really afraid...
On a lighter notes, t's great to see the three children of Magnus together. And Larroca just rocks !